This blog presents news items and resources relating to trial advocacy and the legal system, with a focus on Washington State. It was developed to support the Trial Advocacy Program at the University of Washington School of Law, but now has a broader coverage and a wider audience. In addition to information about trials and trial practice, you'll find notes about appellate practice, the courts, access to justice, and related topics.

Monday, October 10, 2011

As Jay Mehring's case against Spokane and the city's chief of police for defamation and wrongful termination approaches its trial date, the judge says she is "sick of" the attorneys' behavior:

Spokane County Superior Court Judge Kathleen O'Connor had choice words Thursday for attorneys on both sides of the Jay Mehring civil case.

* * *

She ordered attorneys Bob Dunn and Ellen O'Hara to appear before her this afternoon "no matter what" with an agreed upon statement in the case and a list of issues that are in dispute and issues that aren't.

She threatened to hold the lawyers in contempt if they weren't able to do so "because I am sick of this."

The judge also warned that she would have no time to look at motions for reconsideration, "so assume that they're all going to be denied."

* * *

The judge also picked up a report she said had been submitted that morning in violation of a previous order.

"See this? The one I got today? In the waste basket!" she said, holding up the waste basket.

Just today I was about to give a presentation in a classroom when I discovered that my PowerPoint file was not in the folder where I thought I'd saved it. Fortunately I found it, and it was just a small classroom talk, not a million-dollar trial, but the two minutes when I wasn't sure where the darn slides had gone gave me a taste of what these articles (and podcast) are talking about.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

DNA identification, economic estimates of damages, psychiatric evidence of competence to stand trial, engineers' testimony about product defects—there's a lot of scientific testimony in today's courtrooms. How can judges—who are not statisticians, geneticists, economists, epidemiologists, engineers, or psychiatrists—intelligently manage this flood of information?